VC381

No, absolutely it would not be bad, but for me the issue is different. The way the CV tier and power curve works in game, you can't have any historical early war or pre-war fleet carriers. Because the actual planes would be Tier 4 or 5, max 6, but the air group would be at least Tier 7 size, more likely Tier 8/9 size (e.g. the pre-war carriers had 100+ planes early in their careers because biplanes were much smaller than later WWII aircraft). So you could have maybe a late-war USS Enterprise as an easy premium, Tier 8 same planes and similar squadron configuration to Lexington, done! I would buy it. But anything like Yorktown or Akagi would have to be wildly "what-if" with late war aircraft to be competitive at the tiers where their sheer size and plane capacity would put them. That's what I see as the problem with the restrictive way WG has tiered CVs and why I'm proposing premiums with alternative plane setups so we might one day have these ships in an accurate form.

Agreed, to make it different the drop circle could be longer sideways so that the optimal approach would be broadside like a TB run, not from the ends like DBs.

I would like to point out that the converted AP shells used as bombs by the IJN at Pearl Harbour were dropped from level flight by B5N Kates (the one that was usually a TB). Those bombs were way too heavy for the D3A Val DBs. This all came out in a thread I started a while ago about AP bombs. So unless they wanted to make a REALLY unique mechanic, where you had the current TBs doing level bombing runs (with a different approach style and far worse accuracy than DBs), the point about AP bombs doesn't really stand. If they did do that, it would be like turning your ship on its side so that the deck is vertical and having a Nagato fire at it point blank. Deck armor was designed to stop heavy shells at an angle, or relatively light (250kg and 500kg) bombs vertically, not 1,000kg projectiles at near 90 degree angle! Having said that, IJN DBs manual drop circle is tiny to the point where there's almost no RNG except on DDs, but the bombs don't do much except start fires. So they could do what they did for Saipan's DBs. Akagi could have "veteran" Val pilots with auto drop same size as manual, basically DBs that never miss, without it being too OP. It would be an interesting twist where the IJN premium plays DB heavy i.e. more similar to US carriers.

Yeah, I figure it might not be ideal because it would be crazy strong when top tier but completely useless as bottom tier (imagine spamming biplanes at a North Carolina, won't matter how many you have). But the number of planes would be somewhat balanced by their low speed so they wouldn't be able to strike around the map as often. I like the idea of "veteran" squadrons but that might bee too much of a departure for what WG are willing to do.

No Warspite? That's about the only prem I want at the moment not counting ones yet to be released.

I think the point is more about the fact it's exclusive. As was said these balconies existed on sailing ships where the stern was higher and the walkways themselves were lavish and decorated. The concept doesn't transfer very well to steel ships where the stern is lower but Navy officers like their tradition so it stuck around. The point is probably normal sailors weren't allowed there and also assuming you aren't going very fast (or are just in port) it might be quite a nice place to get away from the rest of the people on the ship. Also people those days considered ornate ironwork quite pleasing, so don't think of it as a cage as much as a fancy balcony (with extra safety). The admiral's bride thing is indeed a command separation issue but space and comfort are key components of efficiency especially when command under stress is involved. The point made though is partly about spacious sea cabins being near the bridge and stuff like that, not about the open spaces. Funny the IJN didn't practice that, especially on their early carriers. There's a great little comparison in the book "Shattered Sword" about the Battle of Midway on how one of the US Admirals called his flag captain to his bridge, locked the door and had a shouting match over how to proceed with the battle, then they went off to their separate bridges and did their thing. The reverse is pretty damning, saying how the cramped single bridge of IJN carriers contributed to an inability to question bad decisions or give the officers enough space to discuss, think about and exercise their individual roles, contributing to the loss. Also large warships already had an Ops room in WWII, the fire control computer and plot room for battleships was always below the waterline. But as far as I'm aware navigation on modern warships is still done from the bridge even under battle conditions, for the same reason Admirals and Captains of old didn't always use the nice armored conning towers they were given: because they like to see with their own eyes where they are and what's going on. Some things never change. Besides, the whole protection thing doesn't mean much when these days you either shoot down the missile that's coming for you or you're basically f***ed no matter where you are on the ship.

I don't know, it might be fun and make US AS loadouts not useless. It could be a simple circle target attack that does 0 damage but has a small fire chance and light module destruction. But strafe against planes should stay. Don't think of it as shooting randomly (even if it's what it looks like). Think of it as a co-ordinated Boom and Zoom attack.

The shell arcs are same on Pensacola, NO and stock Baltimore. Only Baltimore second guns and DM have worse arcs. Yes they're higher than other cruisers but I think saying that on NO the arcs are so bad a BB can dodge is a bit of an exaggeration...

Well, firstly I don't think you're doing anything wrong as such. NO is a hard ship to play, as are all T8 cruisers that get screwed by the MM, and your damage isn't far off server average. It's weird because she performs badly but there's nothing about her that's specifically bad. Even the range that you mention is more than Mogami/Atago so it's not the worst point about her. RoF is also better than IJN although of course it will feel slow coming from DD. Having said that, I do enjoy the ship although my stats are only slightly better than yours. I feel going bow in is viable but wastes another of the ships strong points, the amazing agility. Rudder shift and turning circle are amazing, as is speed retention in a turn. What I try to do is use the concealment to judge the battle and go where the enemy BBs aren't, or making sure I shoot when their guns aren't pointed at me. I prefer staying full power and dancing to dodge fire. It's a fine balance and doesn't always work, but as you saw the AP is great so you can put the hurt on higher tier cruisers when you get the chance. So I don't have any magic tricks to make her carry and get 100k damage but if you have a good survival rate that's a good start you can build on. I think you should just enjoy the ship for what it is, it's a T8 cruiser and that's hard work right from the start. I like how she feels, as I said agility and good turret turn make her smooth and not frustrating to sail. Just tread carefully. Also I object to ugly duckling probably one of the most beautiful cruisers of the period as far as I'm concerned. That and the history of the class make me enjoy playing her more. Oh, add me in game if you feel like doing NO divisions. I don't promise I'll do better than you but at least there will be two of us to take advantage of RADAR, focus enemies etc. Good luck!

Well, the difference in average damage between Indianapolis and Moyko I would say is negligible, only Shchors significantly out-performs it on that front. As for win rate, my bet is because Indy is deleting cruisers and winning the game while Myoko is fire-spamming BBs. Same damage, different game impact. By stats then Yorck is the "worst" T7 cruiser.

In my experience torps are dodged before you see them. If you move you avoid random ones. When you are fighting think about who might be firing torps at you, you get a feel for when they fire then start dodging. When you spot them half the work is done and you just need fine adjustments. Never used Vigilance on any ship, if I get hit by a torpedo it's 100% my fault.

Saipan's T9 planes are pretty hard to shoot down. AA is very RNG, bad luck if you lose one but my experience is getting enough TBs to drop quite regularly, against T8 BBs that aren't running dedicated AA setups. And 1 TB isn't 33%, you have 6 of them group them as one and they really hurt. Really the ship is pretty strong, certainly not a candidate for buffs.

Not necessarily if there are more people playing T5 than there are playing T3, which is very likely.

I had a similar gift from the MM gods recently, top tier in my Indianapolis not a BB in the battle. Easy 100k damage. If the game has a low BB count Indy is king.

Well, NO is out-ranged by Indianapolis so I would support that range increase. Speaking of which, aren't the stats for Indy near the top end of T7 cruisers? Gives you an idea of how a Pensacola with longer range and lower detection might perform. And while this isn't World of Cruisers I think my comment that US would do better in that kind of engagement are relevant. Even if there are BBs around you can hang back a bit to assess the situation and engage where the enemy cruisers are but their BBs aren't, where you are at your strongest. Not always possible but part of the meta-game that goes beyond raw combat stats.

Note I'm not saying carriers aren't fun. I've argued in several other threads that the situation isn't as bad as people say and I very much enjoy playing CVs at Tier 7, soon Tier 8. I just think there is so much room to improve the feel of them. Customisation comes up again and again and is a great idea. The game though is designed with utmost simplicity in mind so we take what we get. It's still good for me.

I think AS decks are overly annoying at mid tier because of small maps, high ammo count on fighters, low strike plane reserves and generally poor AA that prevents effective luring (except your friendly neighborhood Texas). But they are not "strong" in the sense that their own damage potential is pitiful. Except for people clubbing to farm clear sky most don't even manual drop at that tier, and 1 DB squad with auto-drop isn't a threat to anyone. Basically people playing AS Bogue/Indy are choosing to turn the battle into 11v11 or 10v10. It's just an easy way out and it can be frustrating but if you learn to bait and dodge their fighters those skills will serve you well later on.

Teob, sorry for the over-reaction, I made some assumptions about your PoV that I probably shouldn't have. But you're trying too hard to be objective and it isn't helping your case. Nobody is denying the stats. My point, perhaps not well made, is that good or bad stats don't make the ship good or bad OVERALL on their own. Saying "a ship has bad stats" and "a ship IS bad" are completely different things. When drawing overall conclusions like that you can't ignore aspects about what makes a ship good or bad (such as the fact it can be good in some situations that might not come up as often, or that it can be enjoyable without being statistically successful) just because they are subjective and/or can't be readily measured. Stats may be objective but their relative importance when judging a ship as a player experience is not, as you yourself readily admit. To reduce the sidetrack a little, this thread is about differences in ships and making an informed choice between trees. Saying "ship X has poor server stats but is nevertheless good at Y and is fun because Z" is much more informative in that context than "ship X is bad because stats, fact". I respect your opinion but object to your faux-objective absolutism.

You can dismiss the fun argument and rely on your facts all you want, but to be honest a small % win rate or a few k average damage difference will not be felt while playing. You're basically saying if you play two ships 100 games each, in one you win 50 in the other 51, that the first ship is frustrating to play and the other isn't, and that's a fact supported by the stats. Now I've typed it, it sound even more ridiculous than I thought. But you're right, some people enjoy different things so leave it at that. You don't like US cruisers, fine, I can understand why and I accept that. But if your perception of what ships are good/bad is so distorted by a small difference in stats I feel sorry for you.

Might I offer an alternative explanation for the lower stats of US cruisers? They don't fit the cruiser meta that WG wants to enforce. They are good escorts but that doesn't bring high damage, XP or necessarily win rate. Their AP and agility makes them great at duelling other cruisers but each other nations has a particular strong point that usually makes them better at the things cruisers are "supposed" to do, hunting DDs and helping to burn down BBs. But in a pure cruiser contest the US have an upper hand. If this game had a "cruisers only" mode I would be willing to bet US cruisers would be top performers. I had a game with Indianapolis recently where there were no BBs, 100k damage, fairly effortless Confederate + High Caliber, almost Kraken. Pensacola would not have done worse in the same situation, doubt Myoko would have had as good a result. But how often do you get that in a real battle? They're balanced around a strength that's not what's expected of them. But they can do great. The other thing about US cruisers is nothing about them stands out as bad but neither do they have a real "best" trait. Their all-rounder setup means they can't fall back on a single, simple playstyle that always works. They are dynamic and that's why most people struggle with them. Also statistics don't measure fun, and US cruisers have a charm when you play them. Sure you don't carry every game but they just feel good, like I said they have no real downsides. I find them very exciting and enjoyable to play, more so than ships I have better stats in.

Well, they are the same ship type so they fill a similar role to an extent but they don't play the same way any more than battleships of the same tier do. It's possible to describe pros, cons and differences but sometimes you just like how a ship "feels". Just bite the bullet at try a few of them, T7 is not that expensive yet and repair costs are still OK. In many ways T7 is a "sweet spot" for cruisers because they are all a big jump in power from T6 but their MM is usually good (top tier often because of T8-9-10 playing together). T8 is the opposite, the ships are barely stronger than T7 but you are constantly in T9-10 games. Also it's hard to say what a whole line is like. I think IJN and Soviets the ships are very similar from T7 to T9 but for German and US Hipper and New Orleans are quite different to York and Pensacola. I feel people above have more or less summed up strengths/weakness. I just want to add that US cruisers have amazing rudder shift and turning circles at these tiers. Their AP is strong because of excellent penetration angles, you get more citadels and more damage on angled targets. Although German and even IJN have more raw theoretical damage with AP they require some "co-operation" from the enemy to get it.

I like the suggestion and I think others do too, but to be honest the reason you haven't got many replies is because we are all tired of imagining a better situation for CVs that will never happen.

I've been running both EM and LS on my Soviet DD line (on Ognevoi closing in on Kiev) because I felt both are necessary. I was also running both SA and BFT, so I was really delaying my progress. Now with the SA re-work and cheap re-spec I have enough points to get AFT but only if I drop either EM or LS. Is that a worthy trade and which one is more important to keep?

I understand your logic but I never used vigilance on any ship and haven't felt worse off for it. EDIT: plus I don't use premium consumables on most of the ships I play so missing SI on a DD can hurt me quite a bit.

+1